Who or What Won (Or Lost) World War II - For Real

[AslanC]

I just want to say that I am loving this conversation, it is a very enlightening read.

I also want to congradulate everyone for keeping it civil and friendly

[dustin]

I love this conversation. Very interesting and informative. But I have one suggestion: If you want to narrow it all down to one factor alone, it is this, some poor SOB sitting in a hole (or a ship) somewhere in France, Italy, N.Africa or some God-forsaken Pacific island with a rifle, a couple of grenades, and the Shadow of Death looming over him that "won" that war. I don't care which army he was in, we all won. The world is much better off without Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

dustin

[Greg Smith]

Amen. Here's to the Roger Young's of this world.

[Sundowner]

Great reading here guys, if i may add my 1/2p's worth for a moment.

Everyone has made some very valid suggestions, true, it's hard to pin down any factor which decided the war one way or the other, but there is one thing which sticks in my mind as vital to the allies in the war.

Intelligence and resistance.

The hundreds of people who risked life and limb behind enemy lines, gathering vital data, disrupting supply lines, tyeing up troops that could have been elsewhere.

The resistance fighters of WWII deserve mention, as do the intelligence operatives from OSS and the like who garnered the important data so vital to the war.

Just my thought

Sundowner

[Scottomir]

Okay, leave it to me to play the Bad Guy and break up this little love-fest we have going on here...

Boo to "agency" history. I'm sick of the new-generation historians trying to put the focus back on individuals and to recover lost individual voices. History is a big steamroller that crushes individuals and renders individual voices devoid of much meaning in the greater context. Any foot soldier on the ground was just that: some poor bloke stuck in a hole, just trying to survive. The outcome of WWII and the shaping of the post-war world emerged from vast forces far beyond individual scope or hope to influence, and only the most powerful individuals (leaders, generals) mattered much in shaping the historical process.

Boo to resistance movements. They accomplished virtually nothing, especially in France. Eastern European partisans were generally more effective and hunting down Jewish refugees than they were at defeating (or even seriously weakening) German forces, who eventually collapsed under Russian superiority in artillery and armor power. The Southern European resistance did inflict more severe losses on German units, though ultimate not a significant portion of German forces were fielded in the Balkans (something around 10%, I believe). The French resistance is the most overrated. They provided some useful intelligence to the D Day paratroopers, it is true, and some of their acts of sabotage disrupted German reinforcements. But generally, Maquis actions had little effect on German forces and merely served as provocations for German occupation forces to inflict reprisals on French civilians. On the rare occasions when the Maquis engaged in pitched battles, they were routed.

It was the determined "unconditional surrender and no separate peace" agreement of the Allies that overthrew Nazi Germany; resistance movements were a sideshow, at best.

[Sarge]

Scottomir, each "individual voice" might not matter a lot, but when you get a few million of them raised in a combined chorus, they can be irresistible. I'm under no illusions about the significance of the role I played in Desert Storm, Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, but my contribution meshed with everyone else's, and the end results are obvious. I don't see history as a steamroller; I see it as a mass movement formed of great numbers of individual actions, and most of those individual actions should be remembered.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Sarge
I see it as a mass movement formed of great numbers of individual actions, and most of those individual actions should be remembered.

I agree. History is what we make of it and that means every individual. If you just say - it does not matter what you do, you underestimate yourself. True one man alone cannot only hardly change something but if everybody thinks that way, nothing will change ever. So if you think that something has to be done than do it, because in the end you might be the one person that makes the difference.

Actually having such an attidue that it does not matter what you do is the exact thing why injustice happens all the time.

[tmutant]

One factor that lost the war for the Axis, and won it for the Allies: Logistics. The Allies were better at moving men and equipment, and keeping them resupplied. The Allies had completely motorized transport. The Germans still relied on horses far too much, Japan used "coolies"(slave laborers) to carry supplies, and infantry marched to battle for the most part, while Allied infantry rode, arriving more rested, fresher, able to last longer, and fight harder. Both sides still had problems with supply, but the Allies solved their issues.

[First of Two]

I can't disagree with the "steamroller of history" more.

And not just because it sounds like something that the pretentious historian in the 4th-season finale of Babylon 5 might have said.

The right individual, in the right place, at the right time, can drastically alter the course of history. Especially over time. Good old "butterfly effect."

What if Booth had missed at Ford's Theater?

What if Pilate had listened to his wife?

What if Socrates had fallen in battle?

What if Hitler's exposure to poison gas during WWI had been fatal?

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by First of Two
I can't disagree with the "steamroller of history" more.
And not just because it sounds like something that the pretentious historian in the 4th-season finale of Babylon 5 might have said.

No need to get personal, friend. There nothing "pretentious" about a deterministic view of history, which has been around and talked about quite a bit for, oh, 300 years now. B5 was hardly making a new contribution to historiography.

It's okay that you can't disagree more, though I think you're disagreeing with something different than what I said. You're making a case for "contingent" history...the bread-and-butter of counterfactuals (which, I have previously mentioned, I think are interesting and fun). I am not arguing against the contingent nature of history: events could happen differently, different events could have led to different consequences. My "steamroller" remark was meant to heat up discussion on whether masses of individuals determine historical outcomes--those "oppressed" and "lost" voices from the past that "agency" historians are so hot on these days. The feeling that individuals control their destinies and shape their world is comforting to us, but I'm just suggesting it may be illusory: history may be something that the powerful few inflict on the powerless many, regardless of how the masses of individuals feel about it. And I'm not asserting this as dogma, merely raising it as a talking point.

But since you're raising "what if" moments in history, for sake of argument let me give some counterpoints...

What if Booth had missed at Ford's Theater?

A whole host of Republicans far more anti-slavery than Lincoln tried very hard from 1867-1871 (or so, depending on what stopping point you want to use) to "reconstruct" the South along racially progressive lines. Their efforts broke against a wall of Northern white apathy (sometimes opposition) and Southern white "Redeemer" resistance. Is it reasonable to assume that merely the continued survival of one unpopular president (Lincoln's reputation only swelled in the years after his murder) would have overcome Southern white hostility to Reconstruction?

What if Pilate had listened to his wife?

Presuming that this event even happened? There are no reliable contemporary Roman sources identifying Pilate's wife...just centuries of (much) later church tradition. (Robert Cowley's "What If? 2" compilation, beginning on p. 48, offers a counterfactual history on this very question.)

What if Socrates had fallen in battle?

Implicit here is that, if Socrates had died at Delium, the world would have lost his philosophical genius. (And this very question is the first chapter in "What If? 2"!) Of course, this begs the question of how much of what we know about Socrates' philosophy actually comes from Socrates...and how much of it is Plato's invention. There isn't a single scrap ever written by Socrates himself. Even Aristotle himself suggested that Plato had invented many of the dialogues for his own purposes. So if Socrates had died, maybe Plato just would have found another teacher and created similar philosophical dialogues anyway. I can't help but wonder how many Athenians wished Socrates had died at Delium, so that he wouldn't have rescued Alcibiades, who later caused their polis so much grief.

What if Hitler's exposure to poison gas during WWI had been fatal?

Nazism existed before Hitler joined the party. Scientific racism was held in good stead in most of the European world long before Hitler's rise to power. Germany had a long tradition of anti-Semitism well before 1932. Germany was in economic shambles for any ambitious leader to prey upon, and the Wiemar Republic was producing wacky charismatic fringe leaders besides Hitler. Hitler may have been the great popularizer of National Socialism, but maybe even without him the same course of events would have happened just with a different figurehead.

Ahh, the fun of history.

[tmutant]

Originally posted by First of Two
What if Hitler's exposure to poison gas during WWI had been fatal?

If Hitler were essential to the rise of Nazism, Communism may have won over the masses instead. A genuine friendship and alliance with the Soviets may have resulted, and warfare to spread Communism may have resulted in a very different World War II.

[First of Two]

Scottomir: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were pretentious. Just that character from B5.

You're not.

Interesting that that book has two of the scenarios I mentioned. I, also, love counterfactuals. MUST pick that up.

Hm... maybe that's where I picked up the ideas for those two examples... reading a review or something. Librarian... so many book reviews crammed into this little head...

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by First of Two
Scottomir: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were pretentious. Just that character from B5.

Hm... maybe that's where I picked up the ideas for those two examples... reading a review or something. Librarian... so many book reviews crammed into this little head...

Ahh, thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. The books definitely are worth picking up. You very likely did come across reviews of them as a librarian. The first book was very well received back in the late 90s. The second book came out a couple years back with less fanfare, but I actually prefer it more.

[First of Two]

MMM... I love Amazon.com. Just bought both books.

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by First of Two
MMM... I love Amazon.com. Just bought both books.

Good! Let me know how you like them. I'd be happy to chew on any of the scenarios presented in more detail.