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.