IT'S GOOD TO BE WEALTHY, and World War II saw the richer side win. The Grand Alliance was a behemoth, consisting of the world's largest land mass (the Soviet Union), the biggest overseas empire (Great Britain), and the financial and industrial giant (the United States). Germany and Japan were strong states, certainly, but they could hardly compete in terms of production, manpower, or power projection. In retrospect, it is easy to oversimplify the Allied victory as an inevitable triumph of superior resources. It is intuitive to believe that bigger, better armed forces automatically confer an advantage, and like all intuitive ideas, this one does have much to recommend it. After all, no less an authority than Napoleon once famously declared that God was on the side of the "big battalions." It is always risky to argue with Napoleon, but though his axiom is true to a degree, it is also incomplete. While superior numbers and wealth are obviously important, modern war requires more than numbers. The real test of the "inevitability" thesis took place on the battlefield. It would be interesting to ask an Allied soldier or sailor, airman or Marine, "How did those superior resources work out for you?" You'd no doubt get back a contemptuous snort, seasoned with the off-color language that made this country great. If the Allies really were fighting a rich man's war, then why so often did their men have to do so outnumbered and at a disadvantage?
No comments:
Post a Comment