WWII in Europe continued pg 150-156

1. 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, the claim made by Richard Overy is an undoubtedly true sentiment. For instance, the greatest factor in determining which side would rise to prominence was undoubtedly economic potential and size. This is seen early in the war as being in Germany's favor as they quickly defeated the French with Blitzkrieg tactics and is still relevant throughout the entirety of the war. The Allies especially excelled in this area once the United States firmly joined the war since there ability to transform into a wartime economy enabled the transition of spending for effective military efforts, reaching a capacity of 70,000 tanks and 120,000 aircraft for use in the war. Russia was in a similar situation, defying their earlier shortcoming in military preparation, with the result of having a production system that was more abundant and of higher quality than Germany for most of the war. This economic superiority was quintessential in the Allied victory over the Axis for the strength it offered in growth as the German economy began to struggle.

In turn, the Allies also reached a superior pinnacle in how they organized and managed the military actions more effectively than the Axis. Although they did not have the same caliber of plans as Sickle Stroke for instant domination, the choices made catalyzed the potential to maintain a successful offensive/defensive for longer. The Allies had developed a capacity for setting up civilian support, constantly improving quality of objectives/technology, and back up services. In doing so, they developed a constant flow of funding and resources, the USA avidly did bonds and rationing during the era, that could be directed towards the war as the nations focused intensely on becoming victorious. For the Pacific arena the organization and depth was so strong that for each servicemen there was they had 18 people acting as support for him. The result of this, mixed with the Allied desperation to win, meant that the Allies were unparalleled in terms of strength and found a way to view the war as a "just" war that was deserving of full commitment.

With that said, the strength of the Allies would not have prevailed as easily as it did, probably even resulting in a more prolonged war, if not for the Axis weaknesses. The greatest factor that was quintessential to the loss on the German part is the deterioration of properly thought out and executed plans. The war started with quick takeovers of Poland and France, but when plans to defeat Britain were placed into action there was a loss of focus. This loss of focus in most evident in how the Nazis changed there focus from Airfields to Cities and allowed for somewhat of a recuperation period for the Royal Air Force; it was revealing of the flawed ideas and leadership since they invaded into Russia before they could truly handle it (aka a second two-front war). Likewise, the dependency of Italy on German help was a continuous drain on resources and time, the delay because Balkan assistance was imperative to the outcome to Operation Barbarossa  that further weakened an economy already below par with the combined of their opponents. These weaknesses definitely helped the Allies get to their victory, but the extent to which they effected the outcome were merely in terms of the timing it ended.

Pages 146-149 WWII in Europe

1. Why did Hitler assume that his airforce could defeat Britain alone?
1.  There was the perceived idea that Germany had better aircraft that would prove more successful and dominate the Royal Air force; however, this was a misjudgement - the planes were excellent fighters but had limited fuel. Plus, his main goal was to get some form of peace agreement in the first place, so he possibly had the intention of just getting them tired enough to give in and make a deal.
2. What factor, in your opinion, was the most important in Britain's victory in the Battle of Britain?
1. The most important factor was the strategic errors made by Hitler. His choice to move his attention away the airfields and into the city not only allowed them time to prepare, repair, and bounce back, as the reading says, but also magnified the weaknesses of the fuel usage by the Germany fleet. In turn, it helped emphasize how they were impaired by using bases in their newly conquered territories instead of their home bases that had long been adapted to the needed usage.
3. Why did Hitler invade into the Balkans and why was this significant?
1. Hitler joined the Italian invasion into the Balkans because Mussolini was not going to succeed in his aims due to Allie involvement. When Hitler entered into the area, it impaired the Allie efforts (especially since it also weakened North Africa for Rommel to continue moving). With that said, it also served as an impairment to Germany for how it postponed the attack on the USSR.
4. What were Hitler's motives for attacking the USSR?
1. He viewed the nation as being inferior to the German people (ie. Salvs) and adopted the international hatred for the Communist ideology. In fact, the whole idea of Communism is what Hitler perceived as the biggest threat to his burgeoning German culture and ideal. Due to this, it had been his intent of the war the entire time; he just had to deal with France and Britain first to avoid unforeseen conflicts that would impair his plans.
5. What factors slowed the initial blitzkrieg of Russia?
1. The factors that impaired the initial Blitzkrieg of Russia were numerous. For one, Great Britain would not forfeit into a peace agreement as Hitler had hoped; instead they had to endure the long Battle of Britain. Likewise, the failure of Mussolini in the Balkans and Egypt meant that Hitler had to support his Allie and pushed back plans even further. With that said, these events that slowed down the initial attack from occurring meant that the time window was smaller and allowed for the USSR to be slightly more prepared than they would have been (not because they listened to warnings, but because they were slowly rebuilding their military status in general).

Pregnant With War

           What Keegan meant when he insinuated that the "twentieth century European civilization was pregnant with war" is that each development that happened in the preceding years, even century, had been nurturing the idea. For instance, the increase in population was being developed in a manner that with each passing decade made them more physically capable for combat, utilizing the increased accessibility of food resources. Likewise, the improved standard of living conditions blended with the mounting nationalism felt throughout the nations, originating from the industrialization and conditions post First World War, until it reached a pinnacle point. That point being characterized by how no one was going to allow for their quality of life to be diminished in this post-war society to be fair but rather expend effort on expanding their reach of influence as far as possible, specifically countries attempting to grow like Germany and Italy. Besides that, the defining values for the people during said time were the concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity. A trifecta of ego fueled superiority as this was the causation of an increasing power thirst as the necessary military resources were being built in reserve at this point, essentially the desire to prove their "superiority" of strength. In the end, it is a disheartening reality that war was inevitable for Europe at this point in civilization because everything available held the capacity to be destructive and individuals in the society had the vision of how to use it for their gain, and that of their nation.