Why the Allies Won - Book Report/Review Example

Why the Allies Won Richard Overy’s book gives an incisive account of how the Allies came to win the World War 2. The author is keen to debunk the myths, especially the assumption that the Allies victory over the Axis was preordained. He seeks to drive home the fact that the victory was a mixture of several factors and in any case, even the Axis could well have won the war. The key factors which stands out according to Overy’s viewpoint, and which eventually led to the decisive defeat of the Axis included the coming in of the Americans with their mass supplies, the gains made by the Red Army over the Soviets and the Battle of sea and air which enabled more supplies to reach the Allies as well as devastating bombing campaigns against the Axis’ positions. In the beginning of his book, Avery makes the point that one of the key issues which led to the victory of the Allies was the material advantage they had over the Germans. For instance, in 1943, the allies were able to produce 151,000 aircrafts against the Germans 43,000 aircrafts (2). This just shows how massive the difference was, and the situation was to be repeated in other areas of resource mobilization. Reading through the book, the insistence of the huge resource gap is repeated over and over. Even though the resources levels kept shifting between the two bases, the rearmament but the Americans coupled by the revival of the Soviet industry after the devastating defeat at the hands of the Germans, tipped this balance for good (4). Even though the author is keen not to draw a conclusion that the superior gap in terms of material supplies was not a major factor in winning the war, it has to be noted that this was a major factor. To begin with, the entry of the United States into the war and the rapid rejuvenation of the Soviets manufacturing after almost obliteration by the Germans between 1941-3, played a key role in defining the war in later years (Schramn 27). For once, even Overy acknowledges that it reached a point where the production of tanks, and aircrafts by the Allies was several times more than that of the levels of the Axis (4). Basically, with huge resources at their disposal, the Allies were better placed to fight the war. However, the author is keen to stress that it will be fallacious to assume that resources alone were enough to tip the balance on the battle field. He makes the assertion that there are many factors that could have cancelled out the resources advantage such as the quality of weapons, application of weapons on the battle field and the skills and courage of the soldiers. Having made a note about the weapons, it is important to look at the human resources. According to Avery (6) having resources such as weapons and tanks and food supplies alone is not enough. The soldiers should have proper training, organisations, morale and military élan. For instance, while making a point about the move by the German forces to take the Soviet territory, the Red Army were never well organized and as a result, nobody gave them a chance (Schramn 79). The morale, skills and the organisations of the German army was legendary and it was expected that within a matter of months, at most three months, the whole of soviet territory will have been taken up. Indeed, when Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1942, it took them weeks to kill 2 million soldiers, destroy 5,000 aircrafts and besieged the biggest cities; Moscow and Leningrad (Avery 19). This was coming on the back of December 1941 where the Soviets had lost 4 million men, 8,000 aircrafts and 17,000 tanks (19). This is not to say that the Red Army were not good enough. They were simply disorganized in the face of the advancing enemy. With the assistance of the Allies, through mainly intelligence collection, and training, the Soviet were able to contain the advance of the Germans and push them out. The defeat of the Germans at the hands of the Soviet in 1943, was a major turning point in the war. It should not be forgotten that the Soviet industries rapidly recovered and with the support of the Allies, were able to produce enough supplies to sustain the war. As a consequence, they were able to produce enough weapons and food that enabled their soldiers to make rapid advances against the already weakened German forces and push them further back, eventually culminating into the Soviet soldiers entering the Germany territory, with the enemy defeated. In sum, Avery argues that as war went on, the Allies became better at organisations and leadership on the battle front, eventually becoming better than their enemies. The author makes an assertion that the in the initial stages, the Axis scored major victories on account of the organisations and leadership of its forces. Indeed, it is the defeat inflicted on the Allies that forced them to rethink their strategies and with time the gap between both sides narrowed. And to the advantage of the Allies, the initial huge victories made the Axis complacent (6) and they would later on pay a heavier price. Another factor that led to the Allies winning the World War 2 over the Axis can be attributed the battle at sea. Their superiority over the battle was important for the simple reason that it is through the sea that they could get they much needed supplied from the Americans, who had just joined the war. The Americans, it has to be noted, joined the Allies later on, and had an economy that could churn much more supplies at a rate that even the Axis could not matched. Therefore, in terms of material supplies, this team was an important addition to the Allies representing a significant boost to the supplies. Sea power, Avery notes, was the only means through which the Allies could bring in supplies and also the only one in which they could fight a genuinely global war (18) and rout the Germany and its allies out of the territories they had occupied and therefore bring them to defeat. It has to be noted though that getting these supplies into Europe was no mean achieving as the ships bringing in supplies had to endure vicious attacks from the German submarines (Schramn 103), which had sunk a number of the ships, leading to significant losses. But the German with their sub marines were not the only threat. They were engaged in a long running war with Japan till it was defeated and again had to contend with naval battles to get supplies through the Persian Gulf and Archangel into the Soviet. To appreciate how important the naval superiority was, one has to look at the events of the 1942 when the Axis were enjoying an upper hand at sea and the British ships were being sunk at a faster rate than they could be replaced (Avery 19). If this situation could have persisted, then the Allies could definitely have been defeated. In sum, naval superiority mean that they were able to get much needed supplies and reinforcements onto the land and therefore help fight the war. The author also points out that even though the bombing campaign carried out by the Allies was a divisive issue even among the policy makers among their various camps, it played a key role in turning the scales in their favour, especially towards the end of the war. With the bombings, the Axis concentrated more of their effort in protecting their territories and this depleted the frontlines of the much needed supplies, further exposing them. This only served to weaken the troops and their positions. Avery notes that the bombing campaign speeded the reentry of the Allied forces into Europe from the western front. Besides, the German pulled their forces from the Russian front ( 20) so as to protect their homeland, further exposing them to the advance of the Soviets who were hot on their heels. Apart from that, with the bombing, the morale and support for war at in Germany and Japan was severely inhibited as people were wore out by the war, denying the political leaders the much needed support they needed from their own people. But above all, the bombing campaign depleted the home economies of the Axis, meaning that their production and supplies of materials needed on the battles front, including the weapons were degraded. Avery notes that even though the gains of the bombing campaign are hard to evaluate, there is no doubt that the campaign catalyzed the advance of Allies from the east, west and southern fronts in 1944, which culminated in the defeat of Germany. The role of political leaders in the war effort cannot be overlooked. Avery is very categorical that the role political leaders took in the war, has a big impact on the strategy on the battle field and the level of support and enthusiasm people had about the war. On one hand, we had Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin who were able to arouse their people to be patriotic and support the war effort and indeed they succeeded. Even though these figures were popular, they left the running of their militaries in the hands of competent individuals who were able to develop sound strategies for the war. This is contrasted with the role Hitler played. Avery notes that Hitler did not trust anybody to run his army, and with time, he was the only one running the affairs and developing strategy (23). Lack of clear leadership during times of war meant that in the Axis states, there were divisions and lack of support for the war. In the case of Hitler, there was an attempt to assassinate him in 1944 by senior officers in his government, Mussolini of Italy was kicked out of power by his people who entered a peace deal with the Allies while in Japan, a sizable section of the population felt that the war was a mistake ( 22). A lack of support for war at home meant that the Axis was struggling, morale of officers and soldiers was ebbing and it was only a matter of time before they were defeated. This lack of support for war crates disillusionment in the population and the soldiers. It is perhaps with an eye in this factor, that the author warned earlier on that being resource rich is not a guarantee of success on the battle field. It has also be noted that the Germans committed a number of tactical mistakes during the campaigns which ended up costing them. For instance, in 1941 when they decided to attack the Soviet Union, they British were almost being defeated (Schramn 72) and consistent attacks on this front could have delivered that victory. But aside from tactical errors, we can also talk of the difference in technological developments between the two sides. This is even clearer especially if we are to consider several issues. For instance, the rapid recovery of the Soviet Union, and the peaking up of American war manufacturing within a short span of period could only have been influenced by technological developments. With time, and with the war turning in their favour, the Allies were able to produce more superior weapons. In sum, it is indeed true that there were many factors that delivered the victory for the Allies for the Allies and this may well go deeper than the factors identified here. This book by Avery is a major addition in covering the Allies victory in the World War 2. Unlike other books I have read, this one gave the subject more depth, in the way it covered the various roles behind the Allies victory. Without introducing new reasons for this victory, it does well in broadening the subject so that the reader can better understand what accentuated the role of these factors in Allies victory. The author has also extensively quoted various sources throughout the book to both give depth and credence to his work. In doing so, the book has well been able to bring to the fore the key issues that led to the victory of the Allies. I would recommend this book to any interested to learn about the World War 2 due to its coverage. Works Cited Read More