Essay:How we won WW2

If asked about the conditions that allowed the Allies to win World War Two, you are likely to recieve an interesting array of responses. It is likely that people would point out examples, such as our superior military, technomarvels in the order of the atomic bomb, or the "suicidal" attacks of the Japanese.

The above points are, admissibly, ridiculous. We had far from a superiour military when we entered the war; Britain was on its heels digging in as the Germans pounded the shore. The technomarvels of WW2 had been, for the most part, already in development, as the Germans had already begun testing missiles by 1940, and had begun work on the nuclear bomb, stopped only when Berlin was seized in 1944.

It is of interest to look at the cultural conditions that gave rise to the Kamikaze bombers. The Japanese placed, and still place, a greater emphasis on the country than the individual. Hence, by killing themselves, the Japanese believed they were doing their country a favor, something they were happy, not afraid, to do.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of war would understand that three conditions are needed for any army to win a war. Bred, you need to have an army to fight with, otherwise, there is no war. Fed, you need to have supplies, medical treatment, food, ammo, and so on. Led, every group, no matter how loosely organized, needs a leader.

The sheer number of soldiers was no problem for the Allies, as the combined population of the U.S, Russia, and Britain exceeded that of the Axis. The territories seized by the Nazi advance were hardly loyal to their goals, interfering with supplies. (There is the noticeable exception of Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian who served as a political leader under Hitler) Czhoslovakia unlesahed a storm of geurilla attacks, similar to the Iraqis to the U.S soldiers today, save for the fact that the Czechs focused on factories, leading the the next topic, feeding the soldiers.

For certain, there were very few problems getting supplies to the Allies. The allies had all of Russia, Britain, and the United States to produce food and supplies, while Germany was restricted to a much smaller area of land, inclusive of their expansion to France, What was then Czechoslovakia, and other countries. While the Germans may have had a noticeable area to get supplies to their soldiers, they did suffer from a battered infrastructure from seizure of the territories. The United States suffered only one significant direct attack (Pearl Harbor), leaving their infrastructure intact.

The allies did have to deal with German U-Boats, which continued to pose a significant threat to travel. As the war went on, however, U-boats were either destroyed, called into the defensive, or defected (and there were some examples)

The “leadership” of WW2 invariably seems to come to General Douglas MacArthur. Despite the fact that he did lead the Allies to victory in the Pacific theatre, he did suffer from several controversies in his leadership, including his choice to invade the Phillipanes, leading to several thousand unneeded deaths. Admiriably, or woefully, depending on your perspective, General MacArthur chose to protect the Roayl Family of Japan from both prosecution and angry mobs who felt the honor of Japan had been impugned upon by a surrender.

As for other countries, there are very few significant names that come to me (perhaps because of my enculturation into the United States). Some of the names I can think of include Andrew Cunningham, New Zealands Bernard Freyberg, but beyond that, I can’t think of any other major players.

(conclusion here)