Why did we win WWII?

I think the people then had different attitudes and morale.. the young soldier in 1940s are in their 80s now. Their thinking and philosophy of life were different.

Hmm... it was plain truthfulness and faithfulness to perform their duty despite difficulties.

Do we still have all these good qualities now? :roll: :rambo:
 
Damien435 said:
We had numbers, strategy, better tech (than Japan), god and the undying patriotism in every Americans heart.
Click to expand...

We also had the fortune to see the two most dangerous men in the world grind each others' nations and militaries and into dust. Remove either one from the equation; Stalin & Russia or Hitler & Germany; and whichever one is left will probably conquer the world.

Lets face it, the USA and the UK were the sideline spectators of that war. Thank God for that. We were also the tiebreaker in the most titanic military clash in human history. Sure we love to inflate the importance of our contribution, but consider the numbers of men, tanks, aircraft and everything that were annihilated on the Russians side. Consider that it took that much blood and destruction (though much was unnecessary) to stop the German juggernaut in its tracks. How would anything else have ever stopped them? [/b]
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Damien435 said:
We had numbers, strategy, better tech (than Japan), god and the undying patriotism in every Americans heart.
Click to expand...

We also had the fortune to see the two most dangerous men in the world grind each others' nations and militaries and into dust. Remove either one from the equation; Stalin & Russia or Hitler & Germany; and whichever one is left will probably conquer the world.

Lets face it, the USA and the UK were the sideline spectators of that war. Thank God for that. We were also the tiebreaker in the most titanic military clash in human history. Sure we love to inflate the importance of our contribution, but consider the numbers of men, tanks, aircraft and everything that were annihilated on the Russians side. Consider that it took that much blood and destruction (though much was unnecessary) to stop the German juggernaut in its tracks. How would anything else have ever stopped them? [/b]
Click to expand...

Hitler pulled lots of troops off the Russian front following D-Day, more troops were fighting the allies in France than Russia, hitler figured he would last longer that way, since it was over 2000 miles to the eastern front and 500 miles to the Atlantic. And lets not forget, the Russians had lots of open steppe where basically all they had to do was drive their tanks as fast as possible, while the allies had to fight through the Ardennes, Hedgerows in France, and cross the Rhine, something that had not beed done since Napolean.

And without Lend Lease Russia would have lost the war in 1941, you wanna take back your statement about the US and UK being on the sidline? It was the RAF that defeated the Luftwaffe, and it was the US indutrial might that won the war.
 
Many of you might find my argument shallow and certainly disagree, but I will say the American-built Liberty Ships won the war. Not only did these ships get the beans and bullets to the Allies, but these ships also became the lifeline to Russia, Britain, and all the Allies. Without these vital ships, I think there might not have even been a Russian winter or Stalingrad because the Germans would have defeated the Russians and we all know this would have very likely altered the outcome of this war. Sprechen Sie deutsch?
 
I agree with you Damien435. In addition to all the other equipment made possible by the liberty ships, aircraft from the Lend-Lease program began arriving from the United States and England, including Hurricanes, Spitfires, B-25 Mitchells, and most importantly, Bell Airacobras, P-39. In fact, it was Pokryshkyn (I hope I spelled his name correctly) who became Russia’s first or second-highest scoring ace flying a P-39.
 
True, my statement goes farther than it should. My main point is that we were fortunate enough to have the two meglomaniacs with aspirations of world conquest pitted against each other, so they cancelled each other's ambitions out. I'm saying that if Stalin and Hitler are too busy destroying each other to focus on the rest of the world, that's prolly a good thing.

From 1941 to 1944, only Russia went head to head with Germany, and I'm saying that's a good thing. Both of their aspirations of world conquest are ground into dust fighting each other. Like I said for the US and UK, its like being the tiebreaker since there's no absolutely certain winner between the two without our role ... prolly Russia loses but that's a damn tough call to make. Lend lease bolsters the Red Army probably just enough to keep them from folding completely, but it would have been a long time before Germany could have fully subdued the entire Soviet Union (with or without help from the west). Its just so damn big. Keeping a viable threat on the Western side kept Germany from committing all its resources to the Ostfront, which also helps the Russians.

The most important point is that either Hitler or Stalin had the will and the tools to make a pretty strong run at global conquest. Luckily, they fought each other and that goes a long ways to preserving freedom in the world.
 
I think that many people also overlook the fact that the Russians were aided greatly by the Allied bombing campaign. I recently read an account where one historian claimed that the Allied bombing campaign allowed Russia to fight back and claim the victory that it did. It has also well documented that if Hitler would have allowed the armor and mechanized divisions to continue – instead of stopping them for two weeks for the infantry to play catch up – the war would have been a German victory.
 
The problem with the US/UK bombing campain being considered a giant contribution ... well the Germans figured out pretty quickly how to stop it from hurting their overall production. They just put their critcal industrial sites underground. So the early bombing was certainly damaging to German industry, but that effectiveness was short-lived. The unoffical purpose of the continued bombing campain was hitting civilian targets and destroying German morale. It certainly didn't make the German people happy having to dig assorted body parts out of the rubble, but it was no more effective than the Germans had been with the same thing during the Battle of Britain or with their V1's, and V2's. If anything, the resolve to fight on was strengthened in most cases. What success the US/UK had with this goal was the result of the duration of the campaign being years long.
 
Before I get started, I'd just like to say this: If I am wrong or inaccurate in some aspects and make myself look like a fool, I am inexperienced and have taken no real course on modern history or history at all for that matter, and am only 15, where as most of you are probably atleast in their late-teens or 20's (atleast). And I don't mean to repate, but it disrupts my line of thought to cut out chunks of my arguement...now, that said...

I don't think you can peg any one reason onto why the Allies won WWII. I don't think you can peg any one reason onto why a particular force wins any large scale conflict, but rather that it is a combination of factors. The Allies won World War II for many reasons. I heard someone mention that America made itself nearly entirely self-sufficient. I would hope so, from what I see the USA's landmass appears to be atleast equal to the landmass of all Europe combined, and I'm quite sure all of europe as one could be self-sufficient - they were before imperialism. One of the huge things that allowed the Allies to win, in my oppinion, is that they managed to hold the UK. Had it fallen, the last spot of major resistance in Europe and the last base for the allies would have been gone. Africa there still was to fight, but with all of the Europe under Hitler's hand he would have would have been free to devote those units formerly dedicated to conquering Europe to Africa and the Eastern front. I may be wrong in this, but it is my oppinion that had the Germans continued there original campaign of bombing the production and military sites and facilities of the British, they would have destroyed all effective resistance of the RAF and had superiority of the air allowing superiority on the Channel and an invasion of the UK by a ground force. Which is in my mind also another huge matter, for it is my oppinion that had the Germans managed to make it to Britain, every man, woman and child capable of holding a weapon would have stepped up to avenge their fallen relatives and comrades, defend their nation, their pride and their way of life. I think that the British knew what was at stake, and would have faught nearly to the last until they were submissable. This would have taken quite some time, and a large amount of manpower. I have heard of the Scots going to war in the middle ages and having 90% of their male population killed off, and believe a similiar situation would have evolved in the UK, but quite possibly with overall population instead. For sure in my mind they would have after the German bombing campaign shifted to the idea of demoralization through mass civilian casualties, and quite likely even if they had stayed true to the original goal of the military minds instead of having Hitler interfere. Which is one of my other reasons that the Allies won, was that Hitler became impatient with the campaign on the western front, and got pissed off and decided he would just smash the hell out of them for their stubborness (in my mind), and instead of demoralizing them gave them more of their famous British fighting spirit, despite that they were months (possibly weeks?) away from breaking the RAF. The allies also won because the German forces, whose tactics and entire war was based on blitzkreig tactics (which seem in my mind to be based on causing an initial spree of havoc from which the enemy command never manages to recover...hopefully because you've broken through the line far enough to take them out.) became stalled and mired in the east in a war of attrition which the military people knew they would lose against a larger enemy, and a larger enemy was both the US and the Russians. It may have been part of the agreement with Japan, but the US only enterred the war full-fledged (if i recall correct) because Hitler declared war on them. Sure, the UK had North America's backing before, but where would all those shipments of support go if the last allied port over there fell? If the UK fell the only way to come at the Germans would either be from the East, through Russia and the Middle-Eastern country-states (whatever they were/are called...I'm not sure about it), or to send a mass invasion fleet across the Atlantic, which isn't something I would want to do when I've got Nazi bombers and fighters coming in at me on runs all the way across the atlantic. Now, I suppose I do aswell then also disagree with the idea of the UK/Western allies being sideline players, because if the UK had fallen those extra forces - maybe not fresh, but fresh from a major victory and a few days of rest en route to the new front - may have turned the balance of the East to their favour. The appearance of seemingly new and fresh troops at the proper moment can absolutely devastate moral, and that effect would also have to be factored in to it. I know that life under the Germans, to me atleast, would have sucked, but I do not know how much worse it would have seemed to those Russian conscripts than life in Russia under Stalin. And once again the sheer numbers deal comes up again. It may have taken 10 russian tanks to take out a tiger, but for each tiger there if there are (which there probably was) 100 enemy tanks, the massive, low-quality force will win. So, to sum it up, I suppose the reasons the Allies won, in my oppinion are:

1. Hitler thought he could do everything better himself
2. The UK held (due to 1)
3. The Russians held (also partially due to 1)
4. The Americans finally joined the war full-on (not due to one, but closely related to.)
5. The Allied forces completely outnumbered the superior quality but massively inferior numerically Axis forces and equipment.

These are not in any particular order, and their are other massively influencing reasons that did not get mentioned due to length and that it is nearly 0300 here and i need to get to bed (so say my parents...).

Someone mentioned superior tech on the Allies side I think, and that is off. The Germans had better tanks (the King Tiger anyone?), better guns (the MG42? any takers?), better fighters (the jet engine for starts), and they had missiles (the V1? and definately V2)

That is my rant and thanks for your time. All feedback is welcome and appreciated. Please pick to shreds any fact that is wrong here and pit your oppinions against mine to the best of your will, but if they are that - say so! :P

Also as a last note, I apologize for the way this post has been all over the place. I only have a few weeks till school starts, and I gotta get my chaotic writing in somewhere....after that it's all mindmaps and structure essays and that junk.

Good Night.
 
My one and only complaint about your post, Canadian, is that monster paragraph. Needs to be broken up a bit. Hurts my eyes and its hard to read. I heartily agree that Hitler leaving an enemy to his back while he goes after the Soviet Union ... is just plain stupid.

As far as the reason that the USA got involved heavily against Germany is a tad more complicated. At that time, America was more composed of ethnic Germans than any other nationality. Because of this, support for going to war with Germany was a hard case for FDR to sell. He could see the writing on the wall. He knew that the US needed to get more involved. He just couldn't cuz the American people believed strongly that we had no business getting involved. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans were stunned and angry at Japan, but they weren't really set against Germany. Even Hitler declaring war against the US didn't fully sway the American sentiment.

At that point, Hitler ordered Donitz to send his "wolfpacks" after the US's Atlantic merchant fleet. They were almost as successful at catching us unprepared as the Japanese were hitting Pearl Harbor. I don't have the stats handy on how many US ships were sunk, but believe me when I say it wasn't pretty. So only after Hitler managed to reach out and kick the US did Rosevelt have any chance of getting all of the US behind the war effort in Europe.
 
Let us remember that if Great Britain and fallen in 1940 then the war would have been all but over. The Brits, Canadians and the Americans could only launch D-Day because they had Britain to launch it from. After the D-Day remembrance this year, FOX News website said 'Although other countries were involved the main attack was spearheaded by America' This is just not true and does the American people a great diservice. On D-Day there were 55% RAF planes, 75% Royal Navy Ships and 40% British Army, 10 Canadian, 50% American. All these great Allies made huge sacrifices in young men and to try and look at it as a competition is very wrong.

However of all the theatres of war, many were just a side show. The war on the eastern front was in a different league. If Adolf had not made the errors during Barborossa it could have been a whole new ball game.

One last thing, only one country (major power i.e US, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, GB) fought from the very first day of WW! to the very last day, and from the very first day of WW2 03/09/1939 to the very last day in the far East, yep Great Britain.
 
I like your points Rufus. The US role in WW2 has a tendency to be both overstated and understated. Without having a point from which to launch an attack into Western Europe, it couldn't have happened at all the way it did. Keeping a threat at the door of continental Europe kept a tremendous amount of Germany's resources tied up in u-boats and maintaining forces to thwart any amphibious invasion attempt. If the UK had fallen then North Africa and the Middle East would have been doomed to fall. The Italian fleet would have never been defeated. Germany would have had the additional resources from the UK, North Africa and the Middle East added into their own, and I don't doubt that Barbarossa would have had a lot more power to throw at the Soviet Union.

Inevitably, it was the Germany v Russia, clash of the titans struggle that decided the outcome of the war. Considering the size of the USSR and the overwhelming numbers of its armed forces, I don't know that there is any formula for a "quick knockout victory" against them, but it probably would have tipped the scales in Germany's favor.

One small correction would "Who was in it from beginning to end?". Great Britain was in from the invasion of Poland on, and that's when most say the war began. Still, China should be recognized for having been in from 1933 to 1945 without ever being completely defeated. So they were in for the longest.
 
Many many reasons

Why did the Allies win WW2? Most of the WW2 was fought on the Eastern Front. The Russian did perform the largest industrial movement ever in modern history (even under direct fire from German troops they moved industrial machinery).

Russian solders were ordnered not to fall back, only advancement was allowed. Fatal for the German soldiers whose orders the same.

The total breakdown of Army Group Centre in Stalingrad paved way for the Russians through central eastern Europe, long distances to Army Group North and South caused the front to stretch and collapse eventually.

Ressistance in France, BeNeLux countries and Scandinavia; people stuck together, fighting the enemy whatever the cost.

To some point I believe the Russians alone could have won the war; the Allied invasion of Normandy caused a second front on already stressed German resources... Strategic bombing another keyword.
 
Re: Many many reasons

sunblock said:
To some point I believe the Russians alone could have won the war; the Allied invasion of Normandy caused a second front on already stressed German resources... Strategic bombing another keyword.
Click to expand...

When you say alone do you mean no Lend-Lease, no help at all from the Allies? If so then IMO you're incorrect to say that. Lend-Lease was absolutely critical to the Soviet Union in WW2.
 
To some point

When you say alone do you mean no Lend-Lease
Click to expand...
No

no help at all from the Allies
Click to expand...
Lend-Lease did help the Russians in the early stages of the war before their own industry was up and running again. Perhaps not so effective when their own industry spit out more hardware than the Allied convoys delivered (at a later date)?

More effective help in my opinion was the Allied bombing of German war Industry and the invasion of Italy - at later dates.


If so then IMO you're incorrect to say that
Click to expand...
PUCA :D
 
The reason Allies won World War II is because the United States allied with the Soviet Union becoming a giant superpower.
 
Re: To some point

sunblock said:
Lend-Lease did help the Russians in the early stages of the war before their own industry was up and running again. Perhaps not so effective when their own industry spit out more hardware than the Allied convoys delivered (at a later date)?

More effective help in my opinion was the Allied bombing of German war Industry and the invasion of Italy - at later dates.
Click to expand...

Lend-Lease supplied the Soviet Union with three items that were absolutely critical (railroad tracks, locomotives and trucks) and one item that was extremely helpful (radios). Without these it's likely that the Soviet Union would have lost to Germany on the Eastern Front.

I don't believe the invasion of Italy was as fundamental to Allied success although it did open up a third theatre which further diverted German resources. However by this time had there been no Lend-Lease (or had the 4 items I mentioned not been delivered in the numbers they were historically) IMO the War in Russia would already have been won by Germany. Also, Allied bombing was troublesome to German war industry but again it did not have the impact that popular belief would suggest. Hitler shot himself in the foot here by not adapting German industry quickly enough (he apparentely wanted to spare the German people the hardships of war) and by frittering away vital resources on Wonder Weapons and the tragic nonsense that was the 'Final Solution'.

It's probably easier to ask why Germany lost rather than why the Allies won. If Germany had done several things differently (which was within their power to do so) then the War in Europe (at least on land) would have been over by 1942.
 
I don't know that it would have been "over" in '42 but you are right that there would have been great strength remaining to resist them. The Germans likely could have spent years mopping up on the Russian front, if they'd done it right and knocked out Moscow/Gorky early in the war. Who knows what would have happened if the BEF had not escaped at Dunkirk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top