|
| Thread: WWII axis and allied leadership | |
|
axminster
Tavern Dweller
|
posted October 11, 2003 07:37 PM |
|
|
WWII axis and allied leadership
From a leadership perspective, why do you think the allies defeated the axis, specifically germany, as a result of Operation Overlord?
____________
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
posted October 11, 2003 11:27 PM |
|
|
'cause they were the bad guys.
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
posted October 11, 2003 11:59 PM |
|
|
|
IMO the allies won because of Stalin's way of running the Soviet Union. It was an unjust and immoral leadership but it was the main reason of our victory. It is quite depressing to think that we won over the most evil dictator of all times because we had one almost as evil, but I think it is the truth.
|
|
BoogieMan
Famous Hero
The John of Spades
|
posted October 12, 2003 10:03 AM |
|
|
I believe that the main reason for the Allies' victory was in fact Hitler ...
Meaning: before the war, Hitler had signed a non-agression pact with Stalin (summer of 1939). When Germany seemed to have total control of the Western front-line (1941), Hitler chose to break the pact and invade The Soviet Union. This was the move that lost him the war, for if the russians would have remained neutral I find it hard to believe that Germany would have ever been defeated.
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.
|
|
this_other_guy
Famous Hero
{0_o} heh...
|
|
posted October 12, 2003 10:14 AM |
|
|
Are you trying to trick us into doing your history homework for you? 
____________
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
|
|
BoogieMan
Famous Hero
The John of Spades
|
|
posted October 12, 2003 10:20 AM |
|
|
Leave him be, Guy, at least he started a promising thread 
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 12, 2003 01:53 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
The allies won because the Axis powers failed to do the only thing garunteed to win them the war, namely put each sucessive enemy out of the war quickly and with little problems. The survival of Britain in europe gave hope back to the allied powers, enabling the eventual liberation of the occupied countries, the support of the occupied peoples and giving America a base through whom they could launch the invasion of the continent. The survival of Russia ensured that the gradual build up of troops and material Russia could produce would eventually overcome the Germans by sheer weight of numbers.
In the Pacific the survival of America, and specifically her Carrier fleet from the disasters of pearl and the early months, (possibly by america knowing Pearl Harbour was due to happen before it did) through the sheer luck of Midway enabled the Allies to recover and fight back, Again the Axis failed in their aim, to knock the allied powers out of the war quickly enough before their numbers could be brought to bear.
Basically the Axis were at their best when they won quick, lightning victories and failed dismally in long, drawn out conflicts. As such the invasion of Russia was a huge Gamble, the failiure to subdue England was a major error, and in the far east the failiure of Japan to end US naval supremacy in order to cripple the Americans left the Axis powers destined to loose. The allies were at their best with weight of numbers and time to rebuild and fight back, giving them that time was simply self defeating
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
axminster
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 12, 2003 04:30 PM |
|
|
I agree to what has been said. It seems the war could have turned out differently if Erwin Rommel wouldn't have left the front on his wifes Birthday (D-day).
I agree Hitler had a large part in the outcome, or at least his generals said so in the end. It seems Hitler was what we would now call a micro manager. If the general were allowed to make their own decisions (Rommel did) the war may have lasted longer than it did, possibly with a different outcome.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 13, 2003 01:23 AM |
|
|
I don't personally tend to think that Rommel being present on D-day and the ongoing campaign in Normandy would have made enough of a difference to the outcome. Rommel was a excellent general, of that there can be no doubt, but in reality his thoughts on D-day were up for question. His plan to "drive the allies into the sea" never really addressed properly the issue of allied Airpower which could have a major effect on the movement of the formations necessary to achieve Rommel's plan. Put simply, allied planes could well have decimated any attack Rommel planned on the day of D-day and beyond. Might have been interesting to see, and certainly had Rommel been present problems over the moving of armour to the front on the day may have evapourated, but whether this could have turned the tide on June 6th we will never know.
As for the Generals vs Hitler issue... Had Hitler unleased Rommel properly on the Middle east and supported him, a drive up through persia and the middle east could have lead to an invasion of Russia which included a front opening right on the doorstep of Russia's main oil supplies in the Caucasus. Whether the supply situation in Africa could ever have made such a plan possible is debatable though. Hitler did make some remarkably stupid suggestions and decisions though, many of which cost the Axis powers their chance to win fortunately.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
|
|
