Why Germany and Italy were defeated

The post on the reading is below :)
Okay, so this seemed like a hopelessly ambiguous question at first, and it certainly deals with a lot of information, but in essence the reasons Germany and Italy lost are fairly easily summarized.
First, the arrival of American troops added unity and hope to the Allies both militarily and socially. Britain no longer stood alone against the Axis, and this improved morale and general probabily of sucess for the Allies. American generals such as Patton and Bradley were able to launch successful offensives with their superior troop numbers and supplies.
And supplies were something that Germany was definitely running short on. They'd been fighting a very long, hard, offensive war from a very tiny country, and Hitler no longer had the supplies or troops to continue blitzkrieg. He'd rather overextened himself, and couldn't keep up a two front war in both France and Russia. He thought that the Western front would be easier to win, so he refused to send troops to the East.
Lastly, Germany and Italy never communicated as sucessfully as the Allies did. This, of course, meant they couldn't launch joint attacks, and were less sucessful when they tried.
Prezi! http://prezi.com/puzep6tsqbqn/why-germany-and-italy-were-defeated/

How to Win the War, Love Hitler

(This post is about pages 453-457)
So this part of the reading is mostly about the end of any sort of German advantage in the war, and focuses on Hitler's belief that he could (in late 1944) still win the war in the West, despite a significant lack of supplies. He thought that, even with few German troops, he could beat the weaker Americans and British with a surprise offensive. At this time, no one expected Hitler to attack, but he didn't want the Western front to turn into a bloody stalemate (he really had learned from WWI), and did make some progress. But he didn't have the troops to fight anymore, especially with two fronts, which leads me to the question: would it ever have been feasible for Germany to win a war against the rest of the world? Yes, they had allies, but Italy was weak and Japan far away, so this lack of troops and supplies was an eventuality. Maybe if things had continued to go as they had at the beginning of the war, Hitler could have won, but as soon as America became involved, every German soldier became a irreplaceable necessity. American troops could be easily and quickly replaced, but Germany is much smaller, and had been fighting for much longer. What do you guys think? Could Hitler (given some stroke of luck) have won the war after America became involved? And how probable was their lack of supplies?

What's wrong with this picture?

One of the most intersting effects, I think, of WWI was the culture that appeared after. I've already talked about the lost generation, but I find it facinating that members of the same generation evolved into Wall Street stockbrokers who convinced everyday people to buy into the stock market, making it seem like an easy way to make quick money. Eventually, these people, having contributed to the great "bubble" lost more than anyone else when it burst. So had WWI influenced this "every man for himself" philosophy? Were people more merciless and materialistic because of it? Ultimatly I think they were, somewhat becase they feared what had happened, and still felt that life was fleeting.

The carriage held but just ourselves, and Immortality (book report)

I read Five Days in London, which examines five days in May, 1940, when England made several fateful decisions about whether or not to stay in WWII. Obviously, it examined Dunkirk and other significant events during this period of time, yet what I found most interesting was its in-depth analysis of the personalities of Winston Churchill and other members of the British war cabinet. This focus on an unconventional method (at least in my experience) of studying history made a lot of sense to me... Likewise, the small time period examined was something I had never encountered before, and yet it contributed greatly to my understanding of history.

Like Hemingway!

In the time between the wars, there was an expatiate movement, especially of ex-servicemen who considered themselves to be a "lost generation". Many moved to Paris and created an intellectual movement of minimalism (like HEMINGWAY!) and the rise of existentialism... this, to me, truly epitomizes the psychological effects of WWI. Many thought they, and their generation, were defined by WWI, and they could never go beyond that. Their youth, idealism, hope and dreams were lost. Yet I think that the unique culture they created was ultimately of immense value to society... and I wonder how they reacted to the next world war.

THE BEST OR NOTHING! (ha! not really)

The most tragic part of WWI was the ability of war planners to devise extremely effective strategies of getting thousands of people killed. Every time they thought of a new (fantastic) idea, it mostly involved storming the other side's trenches and being shot. Why?
Was the world not really ready for this war? Maybe technology and war mongers and society was still in love with the old style of war (heroic charges and honor), and wasn't ready for a war of this scale with these new technologies... Maybe they still wanted the honorable part of war, and weren't really ready for anonymous mass killing. But they did that. To win the war? So why not devise better plans as well?

Japan in WWI

When I was reading about Japan's involvement in WWI, I kept thinking that I was reading about WWII, because I don't really know anything about Eastern involvement in the Great War.
I don't know if this is just my lack of much concrete knowlage about the first world war, or my tendancy to mix most of the 1900's together, but mostly I think it speaks to the highly westernized view of our historical education. We focus so much on western Europe and the war that we are familar with, we often forget that there were other players.
I know that Japan's role in the war was not a major one, and it may be that I've simply forgotten learning it... but I still think that the lack of emphasis but on Japan's role is rather scary.