Greatest Triumph of the Allies in World War II - Essay Example

1 CRITICAL ISSUE PAPER THREE To say that "the greatest triumph of the Allies in World War II was to achieve the impossible" is a deft exercise in the use of hyperbole and reeks excessively of melodrama. General George C. Marshall, who was described by Winston Churchill as "organizer of victory" on account of his sterling and brilliant steering of Allied strategies that resulted to the victory by the Allies against the AXIS Powers, was exercising his gift of the gab, which gift, among others, endeared him to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he uttered these dramatic words. Of course, who said that waging a world war is a piece of cake, especially when the enemy is the Devil Incarnate himself, taking the name Hitler. Whoever boasted that a war on a global scale can be handily won without loss of lives, destruction of property and destabilization of economy. Thus, Marshall's stance is on the brink of exaggeration or at the least overreaction. We may forgive him, considering that the victory may have pushed him to go overboard with excessive elation. But the truth of the matter is, the victory was far from being impossible. The basis for this contention is, first, Germany was practically smashed to smithereens as a result of World War I, which ended in 1919. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 militarily, politically, and economically emasculated Germany, which was forced to limit its armed forces to a measly 100,000 troops with conscription absolutely prohibited1. Moreover, German naval forces were virtually crippled by a provision limiting it to a mere possession of 6 battleships, 6 cruisers, 12 torpedo boats and 12 destroyers plus a provision strictly banning the importation, 2 exportation and manufacture of weapons and poison gas as well as the prohibition of submarines, military aircrafts, artillery and tanks. Thus, the Treaty of Versailles rendered Germany a political lameduck worthy of international pity. To add injury to all those insults, Germany was stripped of its territorial possessions notably West Prussia, Danzig, eastern Upper Silesia, Alsace-Lorraine, and Northern Schleswig2. In 1939, one year before the outbreak of World War II, Germany had barely revived itself from the catastrophic devastation. In 1939, the naval force of Germany was inconsequentially insignificant with a mere 8 cruisers, 18 submarines and 3 pocket battleships3. However, in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler started to rearm Germany and conscripted Germans to the Nazi Wehrmacht. But still in 1939, the Allied forces were in the upper hand. The body count of those who participated in World War II in behalf of the Allied forces was overwhelming as the Allies were able to conscript not only British, French, Russians, Americans (6 million) and Poles but also Canadians (1.1 million), Mexicans, British Indians, Australians, New Zealanders, Nepalese, Greeks etc.4. The Allied manpower alone, gave them the edge. The AXIS manpower, on the other hand, was limited to the Germans, Italians and the Japanese as the conquered countries such as France, Poland, the Scandinavian and Balkan countries never willfully contributed manpower to the AXIS cause but instead fought against them via the underground resistance movements. 3 To say that the Allies were fighting an almost indefensible war is a ludicrous statement because although oftentimes they were caught with their backs on the wall yet the Allies had definite advantages. Prior to the war, Britain was one of the most prosperous nations in the world with one of the highest income per capita and holding the greatest empire in the whole world, the British Empire which included Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and territories in the West Indies. Britain was already prepared for any war contingencies as it began build-up of its military might with its RAF planes and battleships. During World War II, Britain's Royal Air Force planes were the envy of the whole world with its steely magnificence. Not even Hitler's Luftwaffe can hold a candle to RAF planes' design and efficiency. Because of these and because of the pluck of the RAF pilots who manned them as well as its coordination with the Air Force of USA, the Allies were able to repel the spirited rampage of the German Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and were able to bomb Germany incessantly which finally led to the Third Reich's downfall5. These prevented the Germans from producing more weapons of mass destruction. To illustrate the Allies' innate advantage over the Axis, we cite the D-Day battle on June 6,1944 wherein the Allies showcased their superiority of numbers, their mastery of naval warfare, the eminence of their air force and the prudence and leadership qualities of their strategists and planners6 . Prior to D-Day, Hitler had already established Fortress Europe, where through prior intensive propaganda, he was able to tame the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Czechs, the Belgians and the French by brainwashing them that the Nazis were there to effect a holy crusade that would change the whole anarchic, immoral, decadent Europe to one that is altruistic 4 well-organized and ordered, declassified and socialistic. In other words, Hitler promised to bring salvation to the whole of Europe and to pave the way for a better world, a new Eden for everybody. Mesmerized by this revolutionary concept, Hitler's Nazis conquered Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Norway and France 'blitzkrieg' style with hardly a sweat, meaning, either these countries posed no resistance or displayed a mere token opposition7. The horrid thing was that the Allies chose to defer any action. The truth of the matter was that Hitler possessed no special secret weapon to disarm the opposition but mere effective propaganda8. But Hitler's establishment of Fortress Europe made it doubly hard for the Allies, who were based in England to puncture Europe either from the Atlantic, Baltic or Mediterranean Seas or even from Russia, which was buffered by the Iron Countries. Difficult may it be, but it was not an impossible task, contrary to Marshall's claims, because the Allies had the superiority of numbers, the leadership and the military might. Most importantly, Hitler's Wehrmacht faced the impossible task of manning thousands of miles of coastline. The Allies in D-Day, through consolidated, deft strategy by its generals chose the beaches of Normandy, northwestern France to stage the largest amphibious "frontal assault on Fortress Europe"9 and sent tens of thousands of American, British, French, Canadian and Polish soldiers who were backed by naval artillery and glider-borne troops. Prior to that, the Allies diverted the Nazis' attention by shelling and destroying railways, highways and bridges using heavy-bomber planes. Such also prevented the Nazis from reinforcing its army based in the Normandy area10. The battle was a turning point 5 in the war and signaled the beginning of Hitler's end. D-Day proved that the Nazi defenses were vincible and not impossible as Marshall opined. At first, there seemed to be basis for Marshall's assertion that the Allies achieved the impossible, the way Hitler's famed U-boats were asserting its supremacy with a war of attrition in the Atlantic Ocean11. Hitler's 400 U-boats and Luftwaffe planes in 1942 were sinking British ships and with these, went down to the bottom of the ocean food, supplies, oil (from USA and Mexico), raw materials and other supplies basic to Britain's requirements. Hitler was hoping that without these, Britain would be compelled to capitulate especially that by the end of 1941, 9 million tons of such shipment already went down the sea. But then the Allies were gifted with astute military leaders as well as brilliant scientists who did provide the most innovative inventions and technology which elevated the level of warfare several degrees higher. Admiral Horton of Britain demanded that "more aircraft fitted with centrimetric radar and Leigh lights" be deployed to hunt and sink the Nazi U-boats12. And his tactics paid off because by 1943, 41 U-boats were sunk thus turning the tide of war on the high seas in favor of the Allies13. Moreover, in 1941, industrialization which brought with it technological innovation came to the fore and both Germany and the Allies "exploited modernity by integrating technology and logistics into a comprehensive war effort"14. And the Allies edged out the AXIS powers in the race to technological innovation supremacy because in the production of new artilleries, aircraft and other military hardware, the AXIS were hopelessly mired in layers of bureaucracy while 6 "the Allies were able to convert their economies to a war footing with few institutional fetters"15. The Russian production of T34 tanks and aircraft was notably impressive because Stalin was able to goad Russian labor to frenetically produce using Russian hatred for the Germans and threat of Gulag labor. Thus, the Russians were able to penetrate the Iron Curtain because of superior weapons of war. Not even Nazi Minister of Armaments Speer can make Germany duplicate Russian production of war weapons16 In USA, businessmen like Ford , were able to manufacture as much as 10 bombers per day17. Others, mass-produced weapons, ships and aircraft as the US government allowed them to profit from such endeavor. So who says that the Allies were fighting a near impossible- to -win war If there was one commodity that spelled the difference between victory and defeat in this war, it was oil and neither Germany nor Japan were oil producers. It was true that Germany was able to synthesize oil from coal but this was never sufficient. Japan meanwhile relied on oil embargo but "American submarines lay across her supply lines"18. General Marshall should note down that it was the Allies who were on the upper hand on this aspect, with the American oil fields in Alaska and Texas, the Mexican oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico, the British oil fields in the North Sea and the Russian oil fields in Siberia and the Caspian Sea. So this paper reiterates, who is General Marshall kidding Critical Analysis Because this paper deals with the impossibility of winning the war by the Allies, it is Richard Overy's text which provides the details and answers point by point the thesis i.e it was 7 far from impossible to win that war. It is Overy which supplied the facts proving the thesis which is exhaustively done in the first part of this paper. Weinberg's book, though is the most exhaustive and deals with all the facets of the war and described the war in detail as it happened in Europe, the Pacific, Asia, Middle East and North Africa. But the book's purpose is not to explain why it could have been possible or impossible for the Allies to win World War II. John Keegan is even more off-tangent vis--vis the subject matter because Keegan's book is more of a literature review and so much space was devoted to biographical sketches of the war's main protagonists as well as Keegan's personal opinions , views, assertions and critical review of the war's main historical events. We thank Keegan though for supplying us with descriptions of the war's logistics which are germane to this paper. But only Overy's text is relevant and appropriate to the subject matter at hand. This is hardly surprising because Overy's book is entitled "Why the Allies Won" which is but a paraphrasing of the subject matter. We reiterate the above contention that only Overy's book dealt with ideas and arguments that are related to the above issue under consideration. In my opinion, it is Overy who stated his case so brilliantly and lucidly that it was the Allies who definitely won World War II and that they fought a war where they had so much chance to win because all the odds were stacked in their favor. That is a complete antithesis of Marshall's assertion. Wineberg, although more erudite and scholarly in his work, gave all the historical details but never bothered to make a conclusion as to who won the war and most especially never touched on the possibility or impossibility of winning the war like what Overy 8 strongly hinted at. Keegan never bothered at all to delve in this subject matter although his position was that the Allies undoubtedly won the war. In my opinion, John Keegan cannot make a case because he was so engrossed with his criticisms against different personalities and events as well as his own dropping of his 'personal bombs' like he once asserted that the Allies' bombing of Germany was a total fiasco. To make a case, you must have all the facts at hand. Since he failed to present all the facts, therefore he cannot make a case. Weinberg is I think the most objective of the 3 authors because he presents World War II phlegmatically with nary emotions and biases. He refuses to take sides and presents history based on facts and evidences. Although Overy is most relevant in the topic at hand for this paper, he is also the most biased. He cannot hide his being American and his descriptions especially of the Allied victories in D-Day, Battle of Britain and the final defeat of Hitler smack of jubilation and exultation as if he won a personal war. I may point a finger at Overy as obviously biased yet I do agree with him that the Allies deserved the victory that they have won. World War II is a testament to the grit and courage of the Allied soldiers, the sterling leadership and statesmanship of their generals and politicians and the talents and innovativeness of their scientists who all steered them to victory. 10 REFERENCES Aviation-Central.com. "Royal Air Force". http://www.aviation-central.com/1940-1945/aeg00. htm. Brezina, Corona. The Treaty of Versailles, Rosen Publishing Group, 1919. City-data.com. "The American continent Victory in World Wart II. http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/197880-america-continent-victory-world-war--ii html. Keegan, John. The Battle for History:Re-Fighting World War II. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. Overy, Richard & Wheatcroft, Andrew. The Road To War: Origins of World War II, Random House, 1989. Overy, Richard. Why The Allies Won, New York: WW Norton &Company, 1997. Stewart, Timothy. Why the Allies Won World War II. AC Associated Content. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/41605/why_the_allies_won_world_war_ii.html page=28cat=37. Von Mises, Ludwig. Interventionism. An Economic Analysis. Foundation for Economic Education,1998. Weinberg, Gerhard. A World At Arms: A Global History of World War II, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994. Read More