Introduction
The study of history can always be dynamic because its interpretations can always change through time. This is essentially the gist of Professor Jeremy Black’s lecture as he discussed the topic of “Why the Allies won World War II”. Professor Black emphasized that World War II is commonly dated to 1939, the year in which Germany invaded Poland in September 1 that year. In response to that, it lead to declarations of war by Britain and France on September 3, followed by the Dominions of the British Empire, Canada, for example, on September 10. This is an appropriate beginning for the conflict in Europe, but, in Asia, the parallel struggle stemming from Japanese aggression and imperialism began in 1931 with an invasion of Manchuria, the most industrial province of China.
Main body
Eons ago, historians interpreted the triumph of the Allies over the Axis was because they have immense advantage in the mobilisation of economic resources. Most history books, as Professor Black suggested, concentrated the terms of the Axis defeat based on the number of troops, aircraft and artillery among other things, where the Allies clearly has an advantage. This frame of thought continued from 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Professor Black pointed out that this is the most convenient interpretation because 1.) The bulk of the historic knowledge in the West associated World War II with Marxist theories and 2.) The rise of the new social order gave rise to a dominant orthodoxy.
The previous interpretation has changed over the last 15 years because it essentially ignored the fact that it was a war that has real combat with many casualties. Unlike the World War I, the Second World War has made weapons an important part of winning the war. Professor Black reiterated that the weapons itself is not important, but it is how the weapons are used was more essential in the victory by the Allies in World War II. He gave an example that the French had more tanks than the Germans, but still the Germans won. The Japanese defeated the British in Burma (now Myanmar) because they were trained more to fight in the jungle terrain. In this case, economic advantage can only take you very far.
But why did the Japanese and Germans attain defeat in the Second World War? Although Japan and Germany had done well in the first few years of World War II, they failed to take a longer perspective about where their war was going. When Burma fell rapidly, it was the mismanaged British defence that has been exploited by the Japanese, who conquered the country at the cost of fewer than 2,000 dead. As in Malaya, the Japanese proved adroit at outflanking manoeuvres and at exploiting the disorientating consequences for the British of their withdrawals; although the garrison was far weaker than that in Malaya. Yet again, the British troops were untrained for jungle warfare. Serious flaws in planning arose from the contempt for the Japanese. The victory by Japan was just momentary because Allies have trained themselves to fight the Japanese again. The weakness of the Japanese troops lies mainly on their being tactically conservative. In this case, they failed to become flexible in their side and this sealed their fate for their defeat.
In the case of Germans, they became focused on air strikes, called blitzkrieg and Hitler’s long-term views interacted with the short-term opportunities and anxieties presented by international developments. However, opportunities and anxieties do not exist in the abstract, but are sensed and created, and Hitler’s views largely conditioned the process. As a long-term goal, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jewish-dominated Communist Soviet Union, which he felt would secure his notions of racial superiority and living space. This was to be accompanied by the annihilation of the Jews, the two acts creating a Europe that would be dominated by the Germans, who were to be a master race over the Slavs and others (Black 59). In this case, Hitler failed to make compromise. Both the Japanese and Germans failed in making compromise and brutalised people in the territories they conquered. This was their greatest mistake that spelled their immense defeat during World War II.
Conclusion
Ultimately, I found Professor Black’s lecture as insightful because he gave details about how to look at World War II in a different light. It is true that most history books concentrated more on the resources, rather than the tactical strategies that made the Axis powers fail in bringing them triumph in World War II.
Works Cited
Black, Jeremy. World War Two. New York: Routledge, 2003.