Real reason the allies won the war

I’ve been researching France in World War 2 recently, and I stumbled upon this article on JSTOR:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/286380?casa_token=HrDISj647xoAAAAA%3A4r0lrbG6dLMbOFV1mHpvWIxLmi5kgJmFmZ_TYY5Ct12HpfBVa87FyqGvcP00vs2G1JuM3ol2qcQ

Unfortunately, my regular free JSTOR account cannot access this.

Please let me know if you have access to this article in any way. Thank you!

I started by checking my own Global 1940 map analysis document…

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26161/global-1940-2nd-edition-map-analysis/33?page=2&lang=en-GB

…and the entry for Chile says “Chile, a country with close trading ties with Germany, initially chose to remain neutral (in contrast with many South American countries which, although technically neutral, tilted slightly towards the Allied side early in the war). Chile only started to distance itself from the Axis powers in 1943, when it broke diplomatic relations with them.”

According to this page…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

the “Declaration by United Nations”, originally signed by 26 nations in January 1942, was signed by Chile in early 1945. Chile was also one of the original 51 signatories of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, and Chile also apparently declared war on Japan in April 1945. This page…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II

…similarly notes the same declaration of war against Japan and similarly mentions none against Germany.

All in all, it sounds as if Chile was one of the countries (there were several, notably in Latin America) which spent much of WWII playing their cards close to their vest, and which only committeed themselves to the Allied bandwagon once it was clear that a) the war was nearly over and b) the Allies were going to win. Based on the other entries in my map analysis document, it looks as if, basically, the Latin American countries whose real inclination was to be pro-Axis spent the war pretending they were neutral; the Latin American countries whose real inclination was to be neutral spent the war pretending they were pro-Allied; and the Latin American / Caribbean countries whose inclination was to be pro-Allied jumped onto the Allied bandwagon right after Pearl Harbor. The reason for all of these positions (nuanced or overt) isn’t hard to guess: they were all in the western hemisphere, i.e. in the backyard of the United States, so they had to be careful about the public stance they took, even in those countries with right-wing governements and/or significantly large numbers of residents of German ancestry.

Interesting read so far, although I have not gotten through the whole thing yet (the site is huge!). Thanks for sharing.

@Zooey72:

the topic went in a weird direction, to  bring it back I would like to see someone argue the point I made with how Germany could have won the war.

If in either sept 1939, or june 1941 the Sturmgwher were made standard issue to every German soldier how could any army have opposed them?  I think Dunkirk would not have succeeded in 40 and England would have no army, and in 41 Russia would have fallen before winter.  Even if it didn’t fall I am sure Moscow would have fallen, and the following spring offensive would have ended the war in the East.

The difference between this and other ‘miracle weapons’ is that an assault weapon is practical.  Jets and really big tanks take up too many resources even if they had been produced earlier or in greater numbers.  Ammunition would have been a factor, but that would have been it.

Imagine it, an army equipped with assault rifles opposed by armies who are equipped with what is basicaly now a hunting rifle.

Fortunately for the world Hitler didn’t like the concept until it was too late.Â

I found out, that it may have been allready implemented to German Soldiers way earlier, like 1942 as the Mkb-42.
It happend for tests that those Mkb`s 42 were sometimes dropped off for encircled infantry groups in russia to test run it. (weird)
but actually came to positive results of the Mkb-42 aka StGW '44.

@ABWorsham:

You guys have high regards for the Italian Armies.

The Italian war effort can be described as a failure. Italy had only one main front to fight taking on enemies that have many fronts to contend with. The battles of 1915-17 showsed little progress, 1917 the rout of Caporetto.

Only when Austria-Hungary was at the point of revolution could the Italian Armies have large sucess.

I agree.  But the Italians had more divisions and ships engaged with the enemy at any one time than the USA had during the entire conflict.

You also have to consider that the “Alpine Front” was one of the most difficult and geographically challenging of the entire war.

@Fishmoto37:

All of the above made important contributions to the war effort. Which one do you think contibuted the most. Do you think that there is one fighter that the U.S. could not have done without?

The voting is now closed and the P51 is the winner by 3 votes. Although there was very little commentary as to why.

I really liked Army at Dawn, still haven’t read Day of Battle but will eventually.

@Fishmoto37:

My favorite–They Were Expendable with Robert Montgomery and John Wayne. Has been since I was a kid and when I was a kid the Dead Sea was only sick.

Great Movie!