Most decisive factor in WWII Allied victory-resources or population?

From what I've seen regarding various alternative WWII timelines, most people believe that an Allied victory was inevitable, at least under the conditions that the German and Japanese governments placed themselves in. I tend to agree with that sentiment myself, but perhaps for different reasons.

In my mind, the greatest factor favoring the Allied powers is population (please note I said "greatest" and not "only" factor). In 1940, the USA had a population of 131 million, UK was 47 million, France had 42 million, and China had 517 million. For the Axis, Japan had a population of 72 million and Italy had 44 million. I left out Germany and USSR because I can't ever find consistent estimates for their respective populations in 1940, most likely due to the numerous border changes and purges taking place in both countries. For Germany, I've seen estimates ranging from 70 to 95 million. For USSR, I've seen the estimates range from 170 to 200 million. While I won't venture to give an exact total myself, I think it's safe to say that the USSR outnumbered Germany by about 2-1. These numbers don't take into account the British or French colonies or Axis satellite nations, but even then, the numbers heavily favor the Allies.

To me, there is no way that Germany or Japan could have won the war with such huge manpower disparities. The Allies simply had a lot more soldiers to throw into the fire. Even if the average Axis soldier was better trained and better equipped (no consensus on that), China and the USSR alone could field armies at least twice the size of their main Axis opponents.

However, from what I've read on several posts on this and other boards, the main factor behind the Allied victory was natural resources. Neither Germany nor Japan had access to high levels of oil or iron ore, both of which are obviously necessary to fight a large, mechanized war. So my question is this, if Germany and Japan did have large, domestic supplies of oil and steel, would that have been enough to tip the scale in their favor? Or does the huge population disparity still make an Allied victory inevitable?

(yes, I realize that giving Germany and Japan large supplies of natural resources butterflies away most of the conditions leading to WWII to begin with. I don't really know how to figure that into my question. Maybe that's one of the reasons why "How could the Axis have won?" posts always get ridiculed-creating the circumstances under which they could win means recreating thousands of conditions leading to the war to begin with).
 

Deleted member 1487

Natural resources and industrial resources were more important than raw numbers otherwise China would have demolished Japan or the USSR German in 1941. The US's main contribution was it industrial/raw materials to the war, while the UK was able to hold out against the superior population of Germany both by terrain and its more mobilized industry and access to resources via trade/empire.

The Soviets ultimately won via heavier firepower via more mobilized industry thanks to better access to resources, not just its numbers; without that its numbers would have been a detriment as it could not feed its people without major famines without external supply by 1943.
 
A soldier is useless without a weapon, ammo, food, water, etc. If you throw soldiers/planes/tanks/ships into battle without the proper supplies, they will be useless. Look at Russia in WW1. They had tons of men that could fight, but they could not produce enough weapons or food for them to fight effectively.

With that being said, I would say resources are the only limiting factor to the average industrial powers war making capacity.
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
Logistics is perhaps the key factor into the Allied Victory in WWII. The ability to deliver and support military units was crucial to winning the war.

From a quote: "Amateurs study tactics. Veterans study strategy. Professionals study logistics."
 
It's a mixture of all things that can make a difference. If you want a relevant example for this time. Look at the Winter War between Finland and the USSR, Finland had around 4 million people compared to 170 million. Yet they caused 20 times the casualties. And even though they lost, it was mainly due to lack of production then lack of population.
Population only really becomes important if the war is long lasting and attritional. If a nation has a large population, it's unlikely that they would raise as many people as they could because of the lack of resources to keep them supplied.
Even if the Axis had the raw materials that they needed (and honestly Germany had what they needed in terms of steel and oil until late 1943) the strategic approach that they took was what lead them into the attrational battle where their inferior population actually became a weakness for them.
 
Both, ultimately. One without the other is useless. Weapons without people to use them are deadweights while people without weapons are just targets. The two major biggest determinants in who wins a war of attrition is whoever has greater the manufacturing capacity and a larger draftable population.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Logistics is perhaps the key factor into the Allied Victory in WWII. The ability to deliver and support military units was crucial to winning the war.

From a quote: "Amateurs study tactics. Veterans study strategy. Professionals study logistics."


You could perhaps add: "Teenagers study weapons, Amateurs study tactics. Veterans study strategy. Professionals study logistics." :D

But as others have already stated, it is no single factor, but more like a "string of pearls" needing to stick together.

Of course you need a certain population to engage in a major war, but without weapons, training, logistics etc. a large population will rather be a burden. Anyway, by the time lack of recruits seriously hampered the Axis, the war had long since been lost.

I do not agree that the war was lost for the Axis from the start, not at all, but the first important "pearl" was winning BoB. Next "pearl" was WC himself, a less determined (stubborn) leader could easily have caved in to some compromise.

Then of course is the whole Soviet house actually NOT coming down when the door is kicked in at Barbarossa. Paradoxically it probably survived because Stalin had planned an “Orc-production” on a scale never seen before in world history. It probably was intended to run over and subdue Europe into slavery, but ended up blunting the teeth of the Nazi war machine and thus on the good side – Sauron would be embarrassed.

A special “pearl of honour” belongs to FDR. I’m sure he was determined to do whatever he/USA could to stop the Nazis. Until the German DoW 10th of December 1941 that was Lend-Lease and cautiously escalating the situation until a WWI like DoW could be issued sometime in 1942. At first PH actually threatened this scheme, as “Germany first” really had an insufficient legitimacy. That was changed by Hitler declaring war on USA 10th of December – so in a way Hitler deserve his own “black pearl”.

My most precious “pearl” however goes to Alanbrooke, the British Chief of Imperial General Staff. Without a person of his kind (even more determined and stubborn than WC!) I’m seriously afraid that the Wallies would have fallen to a premature eja……. That would have had the Wallies loose the war and either Hitler or Stalin win it.

The biggest pearl of course belong to the Soviet people, without their determination and sacrifice, it all would have been in vain. Another “black pearl” however belong to Hitler. He had been lucky with some of his interventions in France in 1940 and before Moscow in December 1941 and really started to believe he was GroFaZ. By that time a more sane German leadership might not have won Germany the war, but it might have given her a chance to not outright loose it.

As you see I actually think the decisions of a number of individuals was determining. That is usually seen as a very old fashioned view of history. Probably right, but I don’t follow fashion – fashion is welcome to try to catch up, but I won’t wait :p

Anyway, even the most brilliant individuals work within a “materialistic” frame. Alanbrooke’s cautious strategy of deploying the growing amount of allied resources while not being caught out on a limp would have been worth nothing had it not been for finely tuned wallied logistics. We often view wallied logistics as superior, and in capacity it certainly was compared to Axis, but in context with the wallied situation it actually was run on a shoestring and wrong (incautious) decisions would have been disastrous.

In that way I guess you could say, that for the wallies, logistics was the single most important factor. Logistics of course also was important for the Soviets and the Axis, but not as much (in itself a long and interesting subject however).
 
Last edited:
Top