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/
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)