Richard Overy Response

Richard Overy argues that "The war was won in 1945 not from German weaknesses but from Allied strengths." How far do you agree with this statement.

For the most part I agree with Richard Overy's statement, that the war in 1945 was won from Allied strengths rather than German weakness. If the Allied had not been as strong as they were during WWII then Germany's weaknesses would not have been as prevalent or as detrimental. If the Allies hadn't dominated Germany in weapon reproduction, weapon advancement, back-up service, and support from the civilians the two opposing forces would have been on a more even playing field. Therefore, Germany's weaknesses would have been matched by Allied weaknesses. However, the Allies victory can not fully be attributed to their strengths. Their strengths led to Germany's weaknesses, making them vulnerable, and, thus, allowed the Allies to pounce on Germany while they were weak and exposed. The outcome of WWII was caused by a series of events. These series were indeed catalyzed by the Allies strengths, but the war could not have been won without Germany's lack of ability to combat those strengths.

However, I do agree with Overy to the extent that the Allies strengths were key to their victory in that they exposed and challenged German deficiencies. With the USA's entrance into the war the Allies gained an economic and military powerhouse. Combining the US and Britain's military strengths and resources pushed the Allies far ahead of the German's in terms of strength, power, and military strategy. In Overy's defense, I think the Allies' ability to successfully plan and carry out military attacks was the main reason the Allies won the war. Unlike the Germans, the Allies welcomed the support of civilians and employed them to fight the home front war; therefore, the Allies' military powers were able to strictly focus on combat and winning the war. On the other hand, Germany's commander of war (Hitler) also had to be concerned with home front issues, such as weapon output and economic ability to keep fighting. The American's had their own team of civilians to manage the organizational side of the war; thus their strength came in superior organizational skills, ability to delegate and distribute military jobs, and home front involvement/support. In conjunction with Overy, the Allies strength that made them unstoppable was their strategic decision to concentrate the mass of their attack on Germany; thus, pulling all resources to take down the backbone of the Axis powers. 

I hesitate to fully agree with Overy's statement because, even though the Allies' strengths pay a majority role in their victory, I think Mussolini's Italy also played a role in helping the Allies. Many of Germany's weaknesses came  from their alliance with Italy. Italy proved to be a major weakness for Germany. For example, having to stay an extra six weeks in the Balkans to aid Italy caused Hitler's army to be delayed in their attack on Moscow. These six weeks ultimately led to their defeat because the German army was ill prepared for the harsh Russian winter. Also, Italy's inability to fend off the U.S. and Britain during their invasion caused Hitler to have to divide his army between Italy and Russia. Having to pull resources from Russia, helped the Russian Army defeat the now weakened and outnumbered Germans. In my opinion, Italy's lack of support, but rather consumption of German resources, attributed to the war's outcome, more than anything. 

WWII in Europe

1. Why did Hitler assume his air force could defeat Britain alone?

Hitler assumed his air force could defeat Britain alone because it was able to do so in the Battle of France; thus, he was given a false idea of how powerful his air force was. Basing his air force's success off of the Battle of France, a battle against a nation extremely unprepared in comparison, was foolish on Hitler's part. Hitler thought the power of his Luftwaffe would cause Britain to surrender and come to him in negotiation. Also, Hitler's success using the 'Blitz' strategy in France lead him to believe his air force could do the same and easily take down Britain with the same ease and quickness. 

2. What factor, in your opinion, was the most important in Britain's victory in the Battle of Britain?

In my opinion, Britain's revolutionary new warning system, the radar was the most important factor in Britain's victory over Germany in the Battle of Britain. The radar gave them a military advantage over Germany, something Germany usually had. It allowed Britain's RAF to locate the incoming enemy. The radar would show when an enemy aircraft was within 120 km. This really helped the British win the battle because it meant they didn't have to use some of the RAFs as patrol air crafts, looking for the enemy instead of fighting them. Having more planes to fight Germany gave Britain an advantage in numbers. Also, the radar system allowed them to be better prepared for an enemy attack. 

3.  Why did Hitler invade into the Balkans and why was this significant?

 Hitler invaded the Balkans due to Mussolini's failure in do so himself. Italy was an ally to Germany and thus Germany rushed into the Balkans in order to assist their ally. Hitler's invasion into the Balkans is of high significant because in assisting Mussolini in Greece Hitler was forced to delay his attack on the USSR by a crucial six weeks. These six weeks were so crucial and ultimately decided the outcome of the war because it impacted the chances of the Germany army reaching Moscow before the harsh Russian winter arrived (which they did not and thus let the Russian army launch a counter-offensive). 

4. What were Hitler's motives for attacking the USSR?

Hitler attacked the USSR in hopes of gaining more territory, or living space, for the German people. The natural resources the USSR provided, including oil, were vast and would certainly help in Hitler's dream of expanding the German race. However, Hitler's main motive for attacking the USSR was ideological. Hitler strongly wanted to destroy a country that was not only filled with people inferior in his eyes, the Slavs, but also filled with communists. Hitler believed communism was one of the greatest threats to German society and culture, and thus must be destroyed. 

5. What factors slowed the initial blitzkrieg of Russia?

In the very beginning Britain's refusal to make peace with Germany slowed Hitler's plans for Russia. However, frustrated at the delay, Hitler finally decided to leave Britain undefeated. He believed Britain would not be in a strong enough position to launch a second front and the USSR would be easily defeated. 

Every Man A Soldier Reading Response

 What did Keegan mean when he said, "For the truth of twentieth-century European civilization was that the world it dominated was pregnant with war."

With this quote Keegan comments how the first world war had not left Europe completely defenseless or broke, yet still thirsty and ready for another war. With the Industrial Revolution helping Europe's economy many European nations depended on the production of weaponry and military goods to sustain their economies and keep their population employed. Similar to the idea of war in the book 1984, Europe was ready for another war, for it was helping  nations economically and bringing citizens together in a common effort to beat the enemy. The idea of war was contagious in Europe, so to say. The Industrial Revolution also brought technological advancements that nations and armies were eager to use, as Keegan states, " The technology that built the railways also furnished the weapons with which the soldiers of the new armies would inflict mass casualties on each other" (16). Scientists were finding dual purposes for resources, and those dual purposes were uses in wartime; thus, making Europe more than ready and willing for another war. Also, Germany is a prime example of Keegan's quote; after the Treaty of Versailles Germany was eagerly plotting and waiting for a chance to prove its strength as a nation. Germany was extremely pregnant with war; it was infatuated with the idea of revenge and cleaning its reputation of disgrace and embarrassment  caused by the Treaty. Keegan's idea that European civilization was pregnant with war is very accurate as it saw some economic advantages and technological advancements that were products of the first world war and were curious to see what new things could harbor from another war. 

Clausewitz's Statement of War

My group read section 23 and we said:
War is always a serious means for a serious object.

War is not simply a series of mines going off, but it is a series of pulses of violence whose consequences we cannot necessarily have full control of. Although war is often motivated by a political cause, the aim of the original policy may become lost in the process of winning the war.

Clausewitz boils war down to a very simplistic definition that somewhat contradicts his later statement of it being a political cause. He says, "War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale." He goes on to say that war is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will. The manner in which Clausewitz defines war makes it seem so basic and humanistic. This human like aspect of war is something we tend to forget when our nation is at war. We tend to see it more as an animistic thing that is eating away at our nation, but like Clausewitz reminds us, our fellow civilians are fighting for political causes that involve our nation and affect us in some fashion. Clausewitz argues that war is both simplistic in nature, but complex once battle begins and control and motives are lost due to lust for violence and pure desire to win. 

WWII 1939-1941 Timeline